Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamorrean (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Cirt (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Gamorrean
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article asserts only a tiny amount of notability, and is 99% plot repetition. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge- my vote and logic remain the same from the previous AFD. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  --  J mundo 03:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List_of_Star_Wars_races_(F-J). Apathetic as to whether current article first is deleted. Oppose merge, as article content is in-universe plot summary already covered at List_of_Star_Wars_races_(F-J)#Gamorrean. --EEMIV (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per previous discussion here, which most of you will already be familiar with, as you participated in it. -moritheil Talk 03:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A fictional element found in multiple media sources: Star Wars movies, novels, games, comics, and toys. I know they change the suggested guidelines every few weeks, and currently that isn't listed as a reason to keep something, but the guidelines are just suggestions anyway, and can be ignored. There are references to these things on an extremely popular radio show as well.  D r e a m Focus  03:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, as to be blunt, ridiculously notable by any reasonable standard (concerns a fictional race with appearances in literally scores of mainstream films, comics, video games, novels, toys, etc.) with clear potential for improvement (oodles of Google Books results containing out of universe discussion from which a development section could be built as well as Google Scholar and Google News hits. Meets WP:V and WP:N resoundingly. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, per consensus at previous AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not accurate really, the previous AfD closed as no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep very notable, as per arguments above. Ikip (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Star Wars is one of the very few contemporary works in which all major plot elements will be notable.  i would not extend this very far beyond that. DGG (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per above. Granite thump (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Real world notability not established. The only real world content is a bit of unsourced trivia. An association with Star Wars is absolutely meaningless in determining notability. "We don't have the proper sourcing or details to meet the inclusion criteria, but it's Star Wars so keep." is an unacceptable argument. Jay32183 (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge: Appeared in one of the films for 5 minutes, only notable amongst in-universe works from then on. Not notable enough for own article on Wikipedia, merge to "races of..." Ryan 4314   (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge The exception that proves the rule. DGG is right that the Star Wars movies are on of the very few cultural phenomena in which almost any element is notable. I still remember getting the action figure when I was 11, there was quite a stir about this new race being introduced in this movie, and they have been in numerous Star Wars video games etc since then. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The significance of Star Wars is irrelevant when determining the notability of any aspect within it. Notability is not established by association, the topic must be independently notable to get an independent article. Jay32183 (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And it meets a common sense measure of notability due to its appearances in so many different works of fiction across multiple mediums as covered in multiple reliable sources. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For once I thought we saw something in the same light...Beeblebrox (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A common sense measure of notability would be that there are proper sources and details. Your argument for notability has nothing to do with WP:N. Appearing in multiple works of fiction doesn't mean there are proper sources, and it certainly doesn't mean there is proper detail to satisfy WP:PLOT. The argument you guys are making is basically "I like Star Wars and everything associated with it." Linking to a Google search is not the same as finding sources. The results include the word, that doesn't mean they include the coverage necessary for a stand alone article. Jay32183 (talk) 06:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reading the sources in the results demonstrates that they include coverage necessary for a stand alone article. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. I'm not sorting through your Google search, that's your job. If you found sources start rewriting the article. Until then, your Google search is meaningless. WP:PROVEIT, people who want to add, retain, or restore content must supply the sources. "There are sources, look for yourself" doesn't count as providing sources. Jay32183 (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you will not look at the sources, is it credible to then declare them as non-existant?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are not willing to help look for sources, why bother to comment at all? None of us has a "job" here.  We're volunteers, after all, but don't expect everyone else to do work that you are not interested in doing.  It is a team effort after all.  And for the record, I have added references (see  and ).  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not willing to look for sources, but I don't want to keep the content. If an article is not sourced properly, including this article after your changes, my stance is to delete it aggressively. People who want to keep the article have to find and add sources, people who wish to delete the article do not look for sources. Deletion of improperly sourced articles is supposed to be easy. No one should want to keep the content. Unsourced content does nothing but hurt Wikipedia. Jay32183 (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That ignores WP:POTENTIAL.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense here, because this article contains sourced content from published books that obviously improves the quality of Wikipedia by expanding our coverage of a subject of tremendous interest to our readers. DGG is correct.  I mean Star Wars is one of the few works of fiction for which multiple print encyclopedias have been devoted specifically to it.  Given our First pillar about being a specialized encyclopedia as well, surely we are worthy of multiple print encyclopedias.  Thus, there's simply no reason to delete content that is verified through reliable sources per WP:PRESERVE, when it concerns something you can even see and hold in your hands.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 22:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is not properly sourced and only contains plot summary. Being from Star Wars is absolutely meaningless with regards to getting a Wikipedia article.Stop linking to Google searches, they are meaningless. You're making arguments that aren't based on policy. WP:PRESERVE doesn't apply because WP:V isn't met. None of the policies or guidelines mention Star Wars as an inclusion criterion. Jay32183 (talk) 06:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is sufficiently sourced with enough out of universe context that it meets WP:V with flying colors. As a recent RfC has demonstrated, a majority of editors oppose Not#Plot, which is not liste as disputed, because it lacks community support.  Being from Star Wars is of prime relevance, because unlike say some random fictional universe I just made up, being from Star Wars means being showcased in multiple notable works of fiction of a variety of media.  The Google Searches are meaningful because they demonstrate the shear remarkable number of hits the subject gets.  best, --A NobodyMy talk 06:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, every editor opposing WP:PLOT should not be an editor at Wikpedia, because that means they think primary sources establish notability and that a recap is an article. Both are patently false regardless of what the community thinks. WP:GOOGLEHITS shows that your Google argument is absolute bunk, and WP:PROVEIT always trumps WP:PRESERVE. There's only plot so the article can't pass WP:V or WP:N, it is impossible because there are no secondary sources. Even if completely independent of the original publisher, a source with no new information is a primary source. There aren't sources analyzing this subject. We should be more aggressive in deletion. There is no such thing as notability by association. A fictional race from a random universe with significant coverage in reliable sources is more deserving of an article than a fictional race from Star Wars without the sources. Trivia, like the Howard Sterns comment, does not count as real world coverage. Real world coverage remains mandatory even if WP:PLOT is not specifically stated because that's what secondary sources have. Jay32183 (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "...should not be an editor at Wikipedi"!? Please be serious!  Because this article contains more than plot and because its contents can be be verified through multiple reliable sources it is notable by any stretch of the imagination.  Anything that appears in million dollar films, games, comics, books, toys, etc. is notable, and doubly so when it is covered in published books and reviews, i.e. secondary sources, to boot.  You have yet to present any legitimate reason for deletion, as the article is obviously notable and obviously verifiable.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 22:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Closing one's eyes does not make the sources current and potential simply vanish.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Plot summary and in-universe details for a non-notable fictional species which has not received substantial coverage. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Which you know to be totally false. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep When a fictional element crosses over into real universe, and is then found in multiple media sources such as novels, games, comics, and toys, it meets the inclusion criteria per guideline. Were this not so, a merge might serve, however, it is now in the real world, and had been so for some time.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Appearing in multiple fictional works is not appearing in the real world. Jay32183 (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * These replicas exist in the real world... Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the point here (which I admit I did not express very well in my previous remarks) is that it is similar to a character that had been in multiple novels and was therefore not just a detail from one story anymore but something larger than that. The sources provided establish at least that much. What would be good would be if we could locate some older sources from around the time Jedi came out to help establish notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A character appearing in multiple novels isn't necessarily notable either. It doesn't matter if the sources are contemporary or modern since notability isn't temporary, but the sources need to do more than point to plot. A toy or statuette representing a fictional character is not real world context. Real world context could involve the toy, but it would be discussion of its development or critism or the object. Confirming the existence of a physical object is not establishing notability. Jay32183 (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends entirely on the character, as each circumstance must be reviewed on its own merits. And in this case, the novels and toys dp create the real world notability, as I do not expect a Gamorrean to walk up and knock on my door or be itself interviewd by Larry King. Each time one shows up in a book or a store shelf and can be handled and looked at, that is REAL. If the fictional element had no repercussions outside the film where it first appeared, I'd say merge. But that the element has and still continued to have repersussions off the big screen, gives it its real-world notability. And confirming the existance is exacttly what is demanded by WP:V. Its notability is IN its real world repercussions. And note: sources only need to be non-trivial when the mere existence of these sources is what is used to establish notability. That's not the case here. The claim to have originated in the Star Wars universe is a claim to notability here which is easily verified.... and significant after-film distribution in notable books and on toystore shelves speaks for itself.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The point about the older sources is not that being older would make them better, but that they are probably not online. Someone would have to go to a library or somewhere else with news archives that go back to 1983. I live in a small town and our library isn't that large so I'm out I'm afraid, or I'd go look myself. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Stern reference can be expanded. thus some out-of-universe material. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Stern reference is trivia. It is out-of-universe, but trivia. It can't actually be expanded, what else can be said? Jay32183 (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Real world is real world.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Fiction is notable as fiction. Fictional elements are notable as fictional elements, and are of importance because of that. these beings do not exist in the real world, nor do any of the characters in this or almost all fictions. What exists in the real world are the recorded images of characters portraying them. The images themselves are of interest only for the technology in making them and the money they earn.   Everything else that is notable about fiction--everything important-- is within the fictional context. If it weren't for that, nobody would care about fiction in the first place. When people talk about Star Wars, they don't  mean the particles of dye in the film, or the bits on the DVD.  At a early stage in the development of English law, it was a trivial crime to steal a book, for they were considered as worth only that amount of ink and paper. DGG (talk) 04:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, fiction is not notable as fiction. Wikipedia is a real world encyclopedia. The importance of a fictional concept within its fictional world is absolutely meaningless. That's not my opinion, that's Wikipedia policy. There aren't sources discussing this subject from the perspective of the real world. To have an independent article, the subject must be notable beyond the scope of its fictional work, WP:NOTINHERITED. Discussion of a fictional element only from an in-universe perspective means that only primary sources are used, and secondary sources are necessary for notability. Your argument isn't rooted in any policy, you're just saying you like Star Wars. I like Star Wars, this article should be deleted. Jay32183 (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually per Five pillars, we are also specialized encyclopedias. And there are indeed scores of specialized encyclopedias on fiction, including multiple published, print encyclopedias dedicated specifically to Star Wars.  Wikipedia policy clearly and unambiguously supports our including coverage of such items as Gamorreans which have unquestionable importance and notability to people in the real world ranging from fans to students of film history to people interested in toys to people interested in comics to people interested in fictional races.  Thus, there's neither policy backed nor common sense reason for deletion.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That part of five pillars prevents deletion based on subjective measures of importance. All articles need to have secondary sources. My argument is not "this comes from Star Wars, so delete". But my argument does not violate the letter or spirit of any part of the five pillars. In fact, the pillar to which you refer specifically says that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That means that inclusion based on a subjective measure of importance is also not allowed. So the argument "This comes from Star Wars, so it is automatically notable" is out. My argument does not prevent discussion of Star Wars. I treat all topics equally. Sources, which this article does not have even after your addition, are all that matters. Your sources don't count because they verify information that could be verified in the plot of the fictional works alone. That suggests your sources mention but don't cover the subject at hand, which is why Google searches are meaningless, they find everything that mentions the subject, regardless of the depth of coverage. There is no policy that supports your argument for keeping, and there are several policies that support my argument for deletion. If you don't see that, you aren't actually understanding what I say. Let me try to make this really clear: I love Star Wars but this article should be deleted because it is not and cannot be sourced properly. Jay32183 (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article as is is sufficiently sourced to justify inclusion in some capacity per WP:PRESERVE. The Googel Searches demonstrate that it can be improved even further per WP:V and the shear number of results demonstrates that it meets WP:V.  There is no policy that supports your "vote" for deleting, whereas pretty much every policy supports everyone else's calls to keep, merge, or redirect.  Thus, that is why basically everyone else in the discussion says it should be kept in some manner, i.e. because it is sourced properly and can be sourced even more so.  A fictional article that was correctly deleted would be something like in Articles for deletion/Tony Cunningham (Tony & Friends), which is a true contrast to what we are discussing here.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article effectively has zero secondary sources. A Google search is meaningless by itself. It's your Google search, you filter through and find meaningful content. You should not expect any other editor to do that, even others who want to keep the article. Not one person has given a valid argument for keeping, since no one has addressed the issue of zero secondary sources. You don't seem to be paying attention.
 * Then please help add them. The Google search is meaningful, because it returns a plethora of sources.  Do not expect other editors to do all the source finding and article improvement, which is why you have not given a valid argument for deleting, but as I say below, we are just going in circles.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To User:Jay32183, and with respects to the thousands upon thousands who edit here, wikipredia is NOT a real-world encyclopedia until that time someone is actually holding a published hardcopy in their hands, no matter what informations it contains, and no matter how often it is written about (often disparagingly) in real-world sources. It exists in the paperless ether of electronic web. A decent Electromagnetic Pulse directed toward the servers holding this ethereal encyclopedia's database would result in it pretty much disappearing in a wash of static... my contributions included. So... just when will the Foundation publish a hardcopy? Now THAT would be something that would fill up a room and make the real-word Britanica seem a pamphlet by comparison. Oh... and note that in none of my "keep" arguments have I said I either like or dislike Star Wars.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what "real-world encyclopedia" means. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that presents information from the perspective of the real world. You should also note that none of your keep arguments is valid sourcing supplied. There are zero secondary sources. This is an open shut delete, no need for a discussion. Jay32183 (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, then we are speaking about a non-real, electronic encyclopedia trying to present coverage of the real world. Again, sources only need to be in-depth and "non-trivial" when the mere existence of these sources is used to establish notability. And again, that's not the case here, as Gamorrean being a character in the Star Wars film is WP:Verified, and its real-world perspective and in multiple media sources has also been WP:Verfied. Small wonder that myself and others have been reluctant to offer you sources, because you have already been offered links to sources and state you will not look at them: "I'm not sorting through your Google search". That, and your statements "I'm not willing to look for sources," and "People who want to keep the article have to find and add sources, people who wish to delete the article do not look for sources" does not seem quite in line with WP:BEFORE, WP:ATD, WP:POTENTIAL, or WP:PRESERVE, specially since WP:V has been met, whether you agree or not. That you do not want to look for anything that would invalidate your opinion is the reason why I am tempted to not to feed that bear... however.... Gamorrean covered or referenced in the so-called "Real-World"... Los Angeles Times 1, San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times 2, CNET Reviews, Hollywood Reporter, Animation World Network, Dominion Post: ("...drummer looked like a Gamorrean Guard from Return of the Jedi")... and please don't blame me if you do not wish to use a "real-world" library card to look at Hartford Courant, Los Angeles Times 3, The Gazette, The State, University Wire, Spong, Grand Forks Herald, Springfield News, Electronic Gaming Monthly, Philadelphia Inquirer, et al. Thank you though for your views on the article on this character being non-notable. Guideline does not mandate that I or anyone add these sources, only that the sources exist.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This article presents information from the perspective of the real world, as demonstrated by the valid sources provided above and within the article, which is why if the consensus is clearly for keeping the article. But it is clear that we are just going in circles here.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. One of the major species in the Star Wars universe. Many press mentions (see MichaelQSchmidt, above), and it has entered popular culture. Fences and windows (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.